Alleged Wycombe Breach 3rd Party Rules - Getting Relegated?

We call that a sympathy shag in sarf bristol,but the getting drunk part happens beforehand.

Based on quick read of that letter, I'd have thought the recipients would need to reply fast at the very least to either kick into touch or say "you do have a point". They can't possibly leave this to fester can they? I hold out very little hope it will change things for us, but will be interesting week!

[Edit] Sorry - just seen Wycombe's response. Expect similarly swift response from recipients in morning?!

Bearing in mind they've already been fined I'm not sure the "no case to answer" defence is a valid response?

Ciderspace - Yeovil Town view

Conference National side Bristol Rovers have launched a bizarre attempt to regain their Football League status today, three weeks after they were relegated on the final day of the 2013-14 season. The Gas are planning to complain to both the Football Association and the Football League in an attempt to gain Wycombe Wanderers a points deduction that would see them relegated instead of Rovers. The Chairboys survived on goal difference on the final day of the season and as a result were the club immediately above the dotted line in the League Two table.

The action planned by Rovers stems from a recent FA disciplinary case involving former winger Matt Phillips who now plays for Queens Park Rangers in the Championship. Wanderers were fined £10,000 by the FA last week after they were found guilty of arranging a payment to a football agent based on a sell-on clause that had been built into the sale of Phillips.

Rovers are complaining on the basis that "this led to Wycombe wrongfully obtaining a competitive advantage over Bristol Rovers. Without this, Wycombe rather than Bristol Rovers could have been relegated", so their statement reads. Where this starts to unravel somewhat is that this illicit transfer agreement for Phillips was set up in August 2010, when he was transferred to Blackpool for £350,000, whilst Wycombe were under previous ownership.

The matter came to light only three years later when Phillips moved from Blackpool to Queens Park Rangers, when the agent concerned attempted to recoup the 'sell on clause'. Wycombe, by now under new ownership via their Supporters Trust, instead brought the issue to the attention of the FA in September 2013. They have admitted the charge, and have accepted the fine.

Bristol Rovers, in their statement, imply that the FA have yet to pass judgement on the matter, claiming that "the breach, if proven, would have almost certainly led to a points deduction" - the case has already been heard, the breach was proven, but no points deduction was invoked. Given Wycombe have chosen not to appeal against the decision, the FA now consider the matter to be closed.

Rovers claim that Wycombe gained a "competitive advantage" as part of the incident. At a stretch, it's possible that they may have done so during the 2010-11 season, given that at that time they agreed an agency fee that could not - within FA rule - be paid three years later. However, it is rather fanciful to believe that Wycombe's player sale at the beginning of the 2010-11 season was the reason why Bristol Rovers got relegated at the end of the 2013-14 season - four complete seasons later.

The statement from Bristol Rovers claims that Wycombe's breach relates to 'Third Party Ownership' - an evocative term given its connection with the past Carlos Tevez affair. Media reports at the time indicate that Wycombe's fine was for a breach of Rule C2 of the Football Agents Regulations, which concerns the concealment or misrepresentation of transactions relating to agents - i.e. the inference that the payment was not properly declared. Rovers also infer that there may be "possibly other players" involved, but the FA's now closed case only relates to Phillips' transfer.

Wycombe have sensibly chosen to go for an ultra-brief response to Rovers' plans, putting out their own counter-statement on the subject:

"We will, as always, fully cooperate with the Football League and the Football Association in any investigation into this matter, but we are fully confident that there is no case to answer. There will be no further comment from the club at this stage."


www.ciderspace.co.uk/ASP/news/news.asp?NewsItemId=21763

What is "interim relief"?

Doesn't surprise me to be honest Quartermaster we deserved relegation in my opinion on the balance of the season. Don't know how Id feel tbh if we got our place back because of this. Not ideal but you got to play by the rules. Doesn't matter now though, the damage is done already, its out there now. Might as well hope for the best.

That's the thing, it does give it all a bit of an extra edge as it's them! 
They're spitting feathers on their forum as far as I can see (one of those horrible to navigate ones). To be expected I suppose, but as it's them I felt less sympathy than I think I would have if it were a 'nothing' club. 

As you say the damage is done now so let's see where it takes us.

I was Missing the TRASH thread after we won that case.

Finnish glad to have you back in your element!
Good Work So Far:



As I See it In Summary:

A) WWFC Broke rules on Transfer in 2010 - 10k fine. Job Done
B) WWFC did not declare profit from sell-on clause THIS Season. (1.15m)?
They have a case to Answer?
C) WWFC have three players on third party contracts THIS Season.
They have a case to Answer?
D) WWFC by NOT Declaring sell-on clause have breached FFFP Rules.
They have a case to Answer?
E) FA Have implemented fine against WWFC from breach of third party Rules in one case what about the other three?
They have a case to Answer?
F) FA have not followed there own procedures & protocol regarding 3rd party notifications & rule breaks.
They have a case to Answer?
G) Why have the FA not followed the president by previous cases ie (Teviz / West Ham)?
They have a case to Answer?
H) Why have FA not implemented a transfer embargo on WWFC when they discovered breach of Rules set out in (A) above.
They have a case to Answer?


Rovers are right to pursue this. They may get re-instated. They may get compensation. They may get nothing.

Nothing to lose here.

Thinking about it, I now think the THREAT of an Injunction against the fixtures being released is a card we are likely to see played out in court. 

I wish things like this didn't need to happen, but if (BIG if!) WWFC did have any dodgy goings on LAST season then surely you would expect any Board to question it. I think we all need to just see what comes out in the wash.

The BRFC letter to the FL seems to suggest it is all about the way any sell-on clause profit was being dealt with by WWFC and the involvement of its previous owner.   Matt Phillips was indeed sold on last season (23rd August 2013) to QPR so it seems fair to assume that there is an issue to look into here.  Whether it is a substantial issue is another question of course.

None of this extra info was known until recently so it seems like the Board were not tardy in questioning this. The letter also writes "of at least one player", so BRFC are presumably hoping others may have been involved and can smoke some more breaches out during an investigation.

I get a feeling that (a) WWFC have made an real enemy in the agent they hung out to dry, (b) WWFC are in a general pickle (remember what their fans were saying the day we beat them! they were in a mini meltdown themselves), and (c) BRFC are angling to get some money at least. The word 'Tevez' always brings money [cough...], I mean tears to my eyes.